Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Obama is desperate to wipe his DNA off a policy that originated in his administration.

Jeffrey St. Clair added,

Emmett Macfarlane@EmmMacfarlane

If there was ever a time for a former President to break with tradition and call out his successor, it's now. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/obama-supports-protests-american-values-are-at-stake-234375…

1 reply38 retweets48 likes

Too bad, Barack.

As your preacher Jeremiah Wright often said, "the chickens are coming home to roost."

Have you heard people complaining about the rise in their insurance premiums?

That's all I'm hearing right now.

ObamaCare -- the nightmare.

And Barack needs to shut up.

He isn't president.

He's a private citizen and he needs to shut up.

All of the policies people are suddenly disgusted with they were fine with when Barack was in the White House.

This is why we must end the counterproductive regime-change war in Syria that is causing tremendous suffering & death.

119 replies583 retweets1,340 likes

And we'll note this:Veterans For Peace, a
140 chapter global organization that works to educate the causes and
enormous costs and consequences of wars, this week endorsed the
bipartisan Stop Arming Terrorists Act (U.S. House Resolution 608) that
was recently introduced by U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-2).If passed in Congress and signed by President Donald Trump, the act
would making it illegal for federal government funds to be used to
provide certain types of assistance to groups identified as terrorists
or those identified as working with terrorists, including other nations.
The act defines assistance as weapons, munitions, weapons platforms,
intelligence, logistics, training and cash.

“As veterans we took an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution
of the United States,” said Barry Ladendorf, president of Veterans For
Peace. “The threat to the Constitution comes not from Russia, China or
ISIL but from within the walls of Washington D.C. where the Congress and
the Executive branch have enmeshed the country in ongoing unnecessary,
illegal and unconstitutional wars.”Gabbard, who is a major in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard, also
served in Iraq as a military police officer. She currently serves on the
Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees in Congress.

“Those who have seen and experienced war firsthand share a unique
appreciation for the need for peace,” Gabbard said. “From Iraq to Libya
and now in Syria, the U.S. has and continues to wage wars of regime
change, each resulting in unimaginable suffering, devastating loss of
life, and the strengthening of terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS. I
am grateful to have the support of Veterans for Peace for the Stop
Arming Terrorists Act, and for their work to prevent the United States
from continuing to pursue counterproductive, interventionist wars.”

Tulsi Gabbard's Stop Arming Terrorists Act is an important bill.

Maybe we could see some rallies for it?

As for what's going on right now, I wonder what people thought immigration was before this month?

They apparently have never heard the horror stories of the hoops that
must be jumped through over and over just to go through the process as
it already existed.

Donald is now president. He has paused immigration from seven countries for a review period of the existing guidelines.

This says it all:The very same media outlets and blue-state virtue-signalers who are howling about the “cruelty” of Trump’s rejection of Syrian refugees have been telling us for years that we haven’t been aiding the Syrian rebels enough, and that the US must intervene more strenuously in that country’s civil war. Do these people not realize that our policy caused the refugee exodus?

Monday, January 30, 2017. Chaos and violence continue, the rewriting of
history and selective outrage continues, the prime minister of Canada
has issued a Tweet that supporters of war resisters should demand he
follow, and much more.

Great, these are the folks that are fighting ISIS -Iraq parliament approves 'reciprocity' to U.S. ban via @POLITICO

0 replies0 retweets0 likes

They are the ones that are fighting the Islamic State.

Hmm.

And they are some of the ones who are fighting Iraqis.

And have been fighting them.

As any real observer of Iraq knows, the Islamic State (why
then-President Barack Obama called them "junior varsity") took root in
Iraq because of conditions created by the government of then-prime
minister Nouri al-Maliki.

It is why Barack had to insist that Nouri not get a third term (this
after Barack threw out the votes of the Iraqis in 2010 and gave Nouri a
second term via The Erbil Agreement).

Emma Sky: And that national election was a very closely contested
election. Iraqis of all persuasions and stripes went out to participate
in that election. They'd become convinced that politics was the way
forward, that they could achieve what they wanted through politics and
not violence. To people who had previously been insurgents, people
who'd not voted before turned out in large numbers to vote in that
election. And during that election, the incumbent, Nouri al-Maliki,
lost by 2 seats. And the bloc that won was a bloc called Iraqiya led by
Ayad Allawi which campaigned on "NO" to sectarianism, really trying to
move beyond this horrible sectarian fighting -- an Iraq for Iraqis and
no sectarianism. And that message had attracted most of the Sunnis, a
lot of the secular Shia and minority groups as well.Kevin Sylvester: People who felt they'd been shut out during Maliki's regime basically -- or his governance.Emma Sky: Yes, people that felt, you know, that they wanted to be
part of the country called Iraq not -- they wanted to be this, they
wanted Iraq to be the focus and not sect or ethnicity to be the focus.
And Maliki refused to accept the results. He just said, "It is not
right." He wanted a recount. He tried to use de-Ba'athification to
eliminate or disqualify some Iraqiya members and take away the votes
that they had gained. And he just sat in his seat and sat in his seat.
And it became a real sort of internal disagreement within the US system
about what to do? So my boss, Gen [Ray] Odierno, was adamant that the
US should uphold the Constitutional process, protect the political
process, allow the winning group to have first go at trying to form the
government for thirty days. And he didn't think Allawi would be able to
do it with himself as prime minister but he thought if you start the
process they could reach agreement between Allawi and Maliki or a third
candidate might appear who could become the new prime minister. So that
was his recommendation.Kevin Sylvester: Well he even calls [US Vice President Joe] Biden
-- Biden seems to suggest that that's what the administration will
support and then they do a complete switch around. What happened?Emma Sky: Well the ambassador at the time was a guy who hadn't got
experience of the region, he was new in Iraq and didn't really want to
be there. He didn't have the same feel for the country as the general
who'd been there for year after year after year.Kevin Sylvester: Chris Hill.Emma Sky: And he had, for him, you know 'Iraq needs a Shia
strongman. Maliki's our man. Maliki's our friend. Maliki will give us a
follow on security agreement to keep troops in country.' So it looks
as if Biden's listening to these two recommendations and that at the end
Biden went along with the Ambassador's recommendation. And the problem
-- well a number of problems -- but nobody wanted Maliki. People were
very fearful that he was becoming a dictator, that he was sectarian,
that he was divisive. And the elites had tried to remove him through
votes of no confidence in previous years and the US had stepped in each
time and said, "Look, this is not the time, do it through a national
election." So they had a national election, Maliki lost and they were
really convinced they'd be able to get rid of him. So when Biden made
clear that the US position was to keep Maliki as prime minister, this
caused a huge upset with Iraqiya. They began to fear that America was
plotting with Iran in secret agreement. So they moved further and
further and further away from being able to reach a compromise with
Maliki. And no matter how much pressure the Americans put on Iraqiya,
they weren't going to agree to Maliki as prime minister and provided
this opening to Iran because Iran's influence was way low at this stage
because America -- America was credited with ending the civil war
through the 'surge.' But Iran sensed an opportunity and the Iranians
pressured Moqtada al-Sadr -- and they pressured him and pressured him.
And he hated Maliki but they put so much pressure on to agree to a
second Maliki term and the price for that was all American troops out of
the country by the end of 2011. So during this period, Americans got
outplayed by Iran and Maliki moved very much over to the Iranian camp
because they'd guaranteed his second term.Kevin Sylvester: Should-should the Obama administration been paying
more attention? Should they have -- You know, you talk about Chris
Hill, the ambassador you mentioned, seemed more -- at one point, you
describe him being more interested in putting green lawn turf down on
the Embassy in order to play la crosse or something. This is a guy you
definitely paint as not having his head in Iraq. How much of what has
happened since then is at the fault of the Obama administration?
Hillary Clinton who put Chris Hill in place? [For the record, Barack
Obama nominated Chris Hill for the post -- and the Senate confirmed it
-- not Hillary.] How much of what happens -- has happened since -- is
at their feet?Emma Sky: Well, you know, I think they have to take some
responsibility for this because of this mistake made in 2010. And
Hillary Clinton wasn't very much involved in Iraq. She did appoint the
ambassador but she wasn't involved in Iraq because
President Obama had designated Biden to be his point-man on Iraq and
Biden really didn't have the instinct for Iraq. He very much believed in
ancient hatreds, it's in your blood, you just grow up hating each other
and you think if there was anybody who would have actually understood
Iraq it would have been Obama himself. You know, he understands
identity more than many people. He understands multiple identities and
how identities can change. He understands the potential of people to
change. So he's got quite a different world view from somebody like Joe
Biden who's always, you know, "My grandfather was Irish and hated the
British. That's how things are." So it is unfortunate that when the
American public had enough of this war, they wanted to end the war. For
me, it wasn't so much about the troops leaving, it was the politics --
the poisonous politics. And keeping Maliki in power when his poisonous
politics were already evident was, for me, the huge mistake the Obama
administration made. Because what Maliki did in his second term was to
go after his rivals. He was determined he was never going to lose an
election again. So he accused leading Sunni politicians of terrorism
and pushed them out of the political process. He reneged on his
promises that he'd made to the tribal leaders who had fought against al
Qaeda in Iraq during the surge. [She's referring to Sahwa, also known as
Sons of Iraq and Daughters of Iraq and as Awakenings.] He didn't pay
them. He subverted the judiciary. And just ended up causing these mass
Sunni protests that created the environment that the Islamic State
could rear its ugly head and say, "Hey!" And sadly -- and tragically,
many Sunnis thought, "Maybe the Islamic State is better than Maliki."
And you've got to be pretty bad for people to think the Islamic State's
better.

That's the reality so many missed out on.

That's the part of the puzzle they lack as they try to whine, "It sprung from Bully Boy Bush going to war on Iraq!!!"

No.

The Islamic State and al Qaeda in Mesopotamia are not the same thing.
They have similar goals and can work together or can be at war with one
another.

The Islamic State took root in Iraq due to the persecution of the Sunnis.

The Sunnis had turned out to vote and their votes -- all the votes -- were trashed.

Let's again note John Barry's 2012 piece "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq" (Daily Beast):Washington has little political and no military influence
over these developments [in Iraq]. As Michael Gordon and Bernard
Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame,
Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in
2010 to insist that the results of Iraq’s first proper election be
honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable
judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the
most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government,
it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might
have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."

And you can refer to the April 25, 2013 "Iraq snapshot"
for an in depth history of how the Iraqis used the ballot box and were
denied, their elected leaders attempted to use Constitutional mechanisms
on Nouri and were denied, and then began the peaceful protests and
Nouri's attacks on the protesters.

Your inability to pay attention isn't my fault.

And your sudden decision to march to the front of the line with no
knowledge of Iraq since 2008 doesn't mean anyone should listen to you --
quite the contrary.